International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584

Rock mass behaviour prior to failure

T. Szwedzicki*
Division of Mines, NT Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development, Darwin NT 0812, Australia
Accepted 19 February 2003
Abstract
Changes in stress around mining excavations can result in changes in the behaviour of the rock mass which in turn may lead to
damage, failure and consequent collapse of the rock mass. Analysis of documented case studies of regional-scale collapses indicates
that each rock mass failure is preceded by a precursory manifestation of rock mass behaviour. Structural damage and progressive
failure are manifested by the presence of geotechnical warning signs (indicators and precursors) and can be exacerbated by triggers.
Indicators suggest that the rock mass may be prone to damage, whereas geotechnical precursors demonstrate that the rock mass has
been disturbed, possibly preceding failure. Geotechnical analysis of large-scale rock mass behaviour also indicates that the failures
do not happen at random and are not unpredictable in terms of the type of failure and its location. Indicators and precursors have to
be interpreted in conjunction with mine design, mining activities and potential triggers. Geotechnical monitoring of the precursory
behaviour of the rock mass provides timely warning and allows for implementation of remedial measures. In this paper, these issues
are discussed and illustrated in the context of geotechnical risk management.
r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
1. Introduction
Mining activities change the stress distribution and
water conditions in the surrounding rock mass and thus
results in a change in behaviour of the rock mass and
consequently may result in alteration to its structure.
Various manifestations of rock mass behaviour can be
identied in all phases of mining activities.
Throughout mining history, miners have recognized
certain features of rock mass behaviour as tell-tale signs
of impending failure and collapse. In surface mining,
reading the ground includes observations of crack
formation, whereas, in underground mining, conver-
gence of excavation by deformation of support is
monitored.
Unfortunately, changes in rock mass behaviour have
not always been recognized as warning of impending
failure. Rapid and violent failures of large-scale
geotechnical mining structures cause signicant safety
hazards, material damage, and interruption to or even
cessation of mining activities. An ability to recognize
pre-failure rock mass behaviour may result in predicting
or averting the potential for geotechnical failure and
thus avoid a substantial loss. In many occurrences,
geotechnical failures that were classied as unexpected
on closer scrutiny were found to be predictable and
could have been averted, or at least the effects of failure
could have been mitigated.
2. Geotechnical failure of mining structures
Open pits and underground mines are mining
structures that can suffer as a result of rock mass
failure. These structures, when under stress (which can
be mining-induced or brought about by external
conditions), are subject to changes in mechanical
properties. As a result of stress, structures can suffer
damageeven though they maintain integrity and
perform their function. Rock mass failure is dened as
fracturing or disintegration of the rock mass resulting in
a loss of bearing capacity. The failure process starts with
a failure initiation phase, progresses through a propaga-
tion phase and ends in rock mass collapse [1].
Rock mass damage which may result in failure can be
described at local (excavation), transitional (panel, level)
and regional (global, mine) scales. Local-scale damage
*Corresponding author. Mines Division, NT Department of
Business, Industry and Resource Development, Centrepoint Building,
48-50 Smith Street Mall, GPO Box 2901, Darwin NT 0801, Australia.
Tel.: +61-8-8999-5380; fax: +61-8-8999-6527.
E-mail address: tad.szwedzicki@nt.gov.au (T. Szwedzicki).
1365-1609/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00023-6
affects rocks in the vicinity of a mine opening (up to one
radius of the opening from the excavation boundary)
rather than the rock mass. Rock mass damage between
one and three radii from the excavation boundary can
be considered as being of a transitional scale. Regional-
scale damage affects the rock mass through large parts
of a mine (at a distance more than three radii of an
excavation), and can extend many metres, often to the
surface. Under high mining-induced stress, local-scale
damage can propagate for a large distance and nally
result in regional-scale failure [2].
Mining structures can suffer from geotechnical failure
through collapse, inundation, and rockbursts and gas
outbursts:
*
Collapse of the rock mass: The rock mass, as a result
of mining activities, can suffer structural damage, fail
and undergo substantial uncontrolled movement.
This type of rock mass failure is known as rock mass
collapse and can take the form of discontinuous
subsidence [3,4], caving, slope instability or the
disintegration of pillars. Some rock mass collapses
involve uncontrolled movement of rock masses in
excess of several million tonnes.
*
Inundation: Water constitutes a serious hazard for
underground and even open pit mines. The pages of
the history of mining activities are full of mine
disasters caused by inrush of water. Advances in
mining technology and mining legislation have
resulted in a substantial reduction of water inrushes,
but such occurrences continue to happen. Water
inrushes are classied as geotechnical failures because
they are generally caused by the failure of protection
pillars between the body of water and mining
excavations.
*
Rockbursts and gas outbursts: The intensity of rock-
bursts and gas outbursts increases as underground
mining becomes deeper. Despite substantial research
into the mechanisms of these phenomena, it is
generally accepted that prediction of such events in
terms of magnitude and time has not been successful.
The most frequently reported precursors involve
patterns of seismic and acoustic emission [5].
Case studies of the failure of mining structures are
described elsewhere in the published literature [68].
3. Pre-failure warning signs
Analysis of documented case studies of regional-scale
rock mass failures indicates that the geotechnical failure
of mining structures does have precursors [9]. Structural
damage and progressive failure are manifested by the
presence of geotechnical warning signs (indicators and
precursors) and can be exacerbated by triggers [10].
Indicators and precursors leading to local damage and
consequently to regional failure are shown in Fig. 1.
3.1. Indicators
An indicator is dened as a sign, a state or a
contributing factor that points out or suggests that the
rock mass may be prone to damage or failure. Usually,
indicators suggest that the properties of the effected
rocks are different from the surrounding rock mass. In
Indicators
Rock falls
Rock bursts
Pillar collapse
Caving in
Inundation
Bad ground
Moisture
Change in colour
Convergence
Ground creep
Gas emission
Support damage
Core discing
Spalling
Fracturing
Seismicity
Change in properties
Precursors
Seepage
Ground movement
Borehole breakouts
Unstable shape
Slope instability
Large open span of excavations
Local damage
Collapse
Joints
Faults and folds
Inflow
Closure of drill holes
Outbursts
Regional
failure
Strain bursts
Gas absorbing formations
High extraction ratio
Fig. 1. A sequence of rock mass behaviour leading to regional failure.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 574
general, potential failure is indicated by geotechnical
features or mining operational factors.
Geotechnical indicators may include:
*
structural features such as faults, shear zones or
slickensided planes (Fig. 2),
*
geological disturbance in the form of folds and dykes,
*
a change in the mechanical properties of the rock
mass,
*
layers of weak soil or rocks,
*
poor ground conditions, e.g. jointed blocky ground
(Fig. 3),
*
gas absorbing formations,
*
ground discoloration, e.g. resulting from weathering,
and
*
moisture.
In addition to geological indicators, analysis of
operational indicators can draw attention to possible
rock mass structural damage. Such operational indica-
tors include:
*
large open spans of underground excavations,
*
unstable shapes of underground excavations,
*
old excavations in the vicinity of mining activities,
*
a high extraction ratio,
*
blast damage,
*
an accumulation of water in nearby excavations,
*
a large body of water or tailings above underground
excavations,
*
steep slopes in open pits,
*
undercut slopes, and
*
corrosion or deterioration of support and reinforce-
ment.
3.2. Precursors
A geotechnical precursor (a telltale) is a state or
behaviour that suggests that the geotechnical structure
of the rock mass has been damaged prior to possible
failure. Precursors, including results from geotechnical
instrumentation, warn of the development of excess
ground deformations or high stresses. No single
precursor may denote structural damage or failure, but
many are reported during the process of damage and
failure. Observation and monitoring of precursors can
give an indication of the scale of structural damage, i.e.
local, transitional or regional.
Local stress concentration may result in local
structural damage. The behaviour of the rock mass
on such a scale can be observed at the surface of
the excavations. Local-scale rock mass damage is
predominantly manifested by the following precursory
behaviour:
*
cracking rock around mine openings,
*
unravelling of the rock mass (Fig. 4), Fig. 4. Unravelling of rocks from a crest of an open pit.
Fig. 2. A slickensided plane facilitating failure of a slope.
Fig. 3. Structurally controlled wedge failure from a back of an
underground excavation.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 575
*
spalling of rock from the walls of excavations
(Fig. 5),
*
extrusion of joint llings,
*
roof sagging (Fig. 6),
*
local rock falls,
*
hang-up rock on mesh,
*
slabbing (Fig. 7),
*
joint dilation,
*
excavation convergence (oor heave or roof lowering,
Fig. 8),
*
fracturing of walls of excavations,
*
pillar yielding (Fig. 9),
*
overbreak in excavation corners,
*
strain burstswhich miners call popping or spit-
ting as small fragments y from the rock face, and
*
hollow drumming behind shotcrete support.
Certain precursory behaviour indicates that the
damage to the rock mass has taken place on a
transitional scale. Such damage is predominantly
manifested by:
*
pillar punching of the hangingwall or footwall (which
may result in oor heaving or roof guttering, Fig. 10),
*
a need for continuous barring down in areas of loose
rock,
*
the failure of a number of pillars,
*
core discing,
*
borehole breakouts (Fig. 11),
*
the deformation and closure of drillholes,
*
movement across shear zones,
*
rock noises,
*
hour-glassing of pillars (Fig. 12),
*
crack propagation (often between levels),
Fig. 5. Spalling from the hangingwall of an excavation.
Fig. 6. Sagging and shearing of a layer in the roof of an excavation. Fig. 7. Slabbing of a shaft pillar.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 576
*
a change in pattern of the emission of gases, e.g.
methane or carbon dioxide,
*
buckling of layers,
*
ground squeeze or bulging,
*
creep,
*
squeeze,
*
support damage (Fig. 13),
*
the emission of gases such as carbon dioxide or
methane, and
*
water seepage.
Certain precursory behaviour indicates that damage
has progressed for a larger distance. Regional damage
can be manifested by:
*
cracks near the crest of the slope (Fig. 14),
*
movement across faults or sets of joints,
Fig. 8. Excavation convergence monitored by a timber prop.
Fig. 10. Roof guttering.
Fig. 9. Pillar yielding in shear failure.
Fig. 11. Signs of high stressa borehole breakout and extension
cracks.
Fig. 12. Sign of high stressdisintegration of high-strength quartzite
in the side of an excavation.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 577
*
seismic activity, including rockbursts,
*
hangingwall caving,
*
surface-water disappearance,
*
deterioration of ground conditions in part of a mine,
*
cracks on the surface above mining excavations
(Fig. 15),
*
formation of depressions on the surface that com-
monly result in water ponds,
*
surface subsidence,
*
overdraw from stopes,
*
ll migration,
*
an increase in water inow or a change in the water
table,
*
oor heave at the toe of the slope in open pits,
*
wall slumping in open pits (Fig. 16), and
*
bulging (outward and upward) near the toe of
slopes.
It is interesting to note that old miners used to
classify rock noises for the purpose of assessing the
stability of rock mass:
*
Whispering ground: single cracks of low intensity
(indicating local-scale damage).
*
Talking ground: regular cracks of increased intensity
(indicating transitional-scale damage).
*
Shouting ground: big bangs or explosions which
were interpreted as run for your life situations
(indicating regional-scale damage and possible
collapse).
4. Precursory behaviour immediately before failure
There are some long-term observations and records
that indicate that the precursory pattern changes
immediately before failure of the rock mass. From these
records, words of experience, or maybe just a deeply
rooted belief, it appears that, immediately before failure,
there is a short period during which the rock mass shows
a reverse behavioural trend. This trend can be referred
to as silence before the storm during which the rock
mass gathers momentum for an impending failure.
Fig. 13. Sign of high stressa highly compressed timber pack.
Fig. 14. Progressive opening of cracks at a periphery of an open pit. Fig. 15. Surface cracking and subsidence over an underground mine.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 578
Old colliers had noted the change in behavioural
pattern before gas outbursts and rockbursts. Before gas
outbursts, the emission of gases increases culminating in
the outburst. A 1956 Royal Commission of Inquiry [11]
stated that the older generation of miners identied
signs of impending outbursts, Of these signs we may
quote the following examplesysudden reduction of the
amount of gas in the working.
Major rockbursts are usually preceded by a smaller
seismic event. However, in collieries that are rockburst
prone, old miners are quite comfortable when the rock
mass is talking: i.e. when there is some acoustic
emission, indicating that energy is being released. They
start to worry when the rock noises reduce. They believe
that energy starts to accumulate before a major rock-
burst.
In the case of inundation of the Gretley Colliery, New
South Wales, it was reported that, when approaching
the body of water, an increase in water inow was
noticeable for a period of 2 weeks. However, in the
formal report into the Gretley disaster [12], one witness
stated that just hours before the inrush, I had an
inspection at the face to see if water was still there and
the water had appeared to dry up.
A similar change in precursory pattern was noticed at
the Bronzewing Gold Mine, Western Australia, where a
backll barricade collapsed and a large amount of
ll material poured into the mine. Hydraulic pressure
behind the barricade was monitored at 2-h intervals.
The record of investigation [13] states that The
pressure was rising each time the ll was placed. ythe
graph showed a gradual increase until ve days before
the collapse when pressure stabilized and remained with
relatively little variations. About 10 h before the
collapse, the readings indicated a sudden and dramatic
drop (12.5 per cent). The reason for the fall in pressure
was not known.
Again, in the case of the crown pillar collapse at the
Warrego Mine, Northern Territory [14], after a mass
blast and before ground collapse 10 days later, the
shaft sump lost water and regained it on a few
occasions [15].
An interesting phenomenon was recorded during the
hearing of the Commission of Inquiry into the Aberfan
disaster [16]. The moment of liquefaction of the waste
tip, which was about 33 m high and contained
250 000 m
3
of uncompacted rock material, was seen by
a crane driver who stood at the top of the collapsing
waste tip. He described it as follows: I was standing on
the edge of the depression. I was looking down into it
and what I saw I couldnt believe my eyes. It was
starting to come back up. It started to rise slowly at rst.
I still did not believe it, I thought I was seeing things.
Then it rose up after pretty fast, at a tremendous speed.
Then it sort of came up out of the depression and turned
itself into a wavethat is the only way I can describe
itdown towards the mountainy towards Aberfan
villagey.
The above-mentioned phenomena were not tested,
measured or even quantied. Their occurrences were
often not conrmed, but they represented the observa-
tions and/or beliefs of miners. Such phenomena were
documented in the reports by Commissions of Inquiry,
usually without any attempt to explain them.
5. Triggers
Severely damaged or partially failed rock masses can
still be in a stable condition. The failure is usually
initiated or exacerbated by external triggers like rainfall,
blasting or seismic activities.
*
Most rock mass collapses, especially surface crown
pillars and open pit slopes, happen after rain or result
from water accumulation, as is well documented for
soil slopes. A common cause of collapse is inltration
of water due to heavy rain, rain in areas with large
accumulations of snow, or rain after prolonged
periods of drought. Water leads to loss of strength
or washing out of critical binding or key material.
Water can wash away joint lls thereby allowing
severe water inow, free block movement and the
transport of ne soil particles from the overburden.
Groundwater may cause high pore or high hydraulic
pressures in joints that may adversely affect stability.
Fig. 16. Slumping of weak rock at the bottom of an open pit.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 579
Inowing groundwater may cause rapid deterioration
of geotechnical properties due to susceptibility to
moisture deterioration, i.e. it can soften the rock
mass, reduce its bearing capacity and precipitate its
failure.
*
A large number of mining structure collapses are
triggered by mining activities. The most common is
structural damage resulting from blasting. Other
triggers include overbreaking due to decient blast
design or poor quality of excavation techniques, e.g.
overbreaks or undercutting. In extreme situations,
the movement of heavy equipment can trigger
uncontrolled ground movement (e.g. failure of sur-
face crown pillars).
*
In the mine literature, it can be found that collapses
of mines were also triggered by natural seismic
events.
It is interesting to note that a certain delay is observed
between triggers and subsequent failure. It is often noted
that ground falls in mines take place a few hours after
blasting. In a few cases, massive collapses took place a
few days after blasting. It has also been reported that the
collapse of surface crown pillar or substantial slope
failures in open pits usually take place a few days after
heavy rainfalls.
6. Post-failure behaviour
Rock mass damage usually takes place slowly over
periods of months or even years. However, collapse
usually takes place abruptly within seconds or minutes.
After a collapse, the rock mass usually does not stabilize
immediately but exhibits some post-failure behaviour
that can continue for a long period of time.
Case studies of ground collapse revealed that major
collapses were followed by rock falls, and rock
noises were heard for a period of few hours [17]
if not days. This was generally followed by creep, the
opening of cracks and ground movement. In cases of
crown pillar collapse, some slumping of material
from the walls of sinkholes was noticed. Ground
movement and additional subsidence have often been
noticed for a number of years, usually accelerated after
heavy rain.
Increased emission of methane after large pillar
collapse in a trona
1
mine was noticed for a period of
3 months [18].
Another source of observations of post-failure beha-
viour is the behaviour of the strata above longwall coal
mining. The maximum subsidence takes place in a few
months, with some residual subsidence continuing for
many years.
7. Sequence of precursors to rock mass failure
Analysis of case studies of geotechnical disasters of
mining structures, which included collapses of rock mass
in excess of 100 000 tonne, indicates that the precursory
behaviour to rock mass failure has a pattern. There is a
succession in recorded precursory rock mass behaviour
in time, intensity and location. The sequence of
geotechnical precursors commences with ground defor-
mation leading to deterioration in ground conditions
and concludes with uncontrolled ground movement.
Once the process of failure is initiated at a local scale, it
propagates through the transitional scale to the regional
scale. It has to be noted that certain precursors can be
coupled, e.g. core discing can take place at the same time
as spalling and convergence, while certain precursors
can take place sequentially, e.g. methane emission can
take place before oor heave and that takes place before
rock noises.
In cases of regional rock mass failure resulting
in massive collapses, the following succession is
observed:
*
Initial precursory behaviour is noticed at the periph-
ery of the site of oncoming failure and that the
behaviour can be classied as long term. Ground
movement at the periphery of the site of oncoming
collapse is observed years in advance. The term
ground movement is dened as surface cracking,
crack opening, or vertical and horizontal displace-
ment.
*
Over time, the precursory behaviour becomes more
localized and can be classied as medium term.
Months before collapse, precursors can be broadly
described as a deterioration in ground condi-
tions. Noticeable precursors include surface subsi-
dence, small falls of ground occurrences, oor
heaving, roof lowering or damage to mining
excavations.
*
Within weeks before collapse, precursors are noticed
in close vicinity to the centre of the impending
collapse site, the main ones being fall of ground,
spalling, individual pillar collapse or pillar yielding.
In collieries, emission of gases has been noticed. A
change in water inow can also be regarded as a
geotechnical precursor to imminent failure.
*
Immediately before the failure, precursory behaviour
is short term. Hours before collapse, the most
common observations are rock noises and large falls
of ground. It appears that these precursors take place
at the centre of impending collapse.
Based on the observed succession, it is possible to
distinguish three phases of geotechnical warning:
*
An awareness phase, during which initial precursory
behaviour can be noticed. This phase is observed
1
A source of sodium compounds.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 580
years to months before the collapse. Recognition of
precursory behaviour allows for a change in mining
operations and remedial action may prevent impend-
ing failure.
*
An alert phase, during which precursory behaviour is
localized. This phase is observed months to weeks
before the collapse. During that phase, orderly
actions to minimize losses should be instigated.
*
Alarm or evacuation phase, during which precursory
behaviour is observed at the centre of impending
collapse. This phase is observed days to hours before
the collapse. Recognition of that phase allows for
urgent action to prevent heavy losses of personnel
and equipment.
8. Geotechnical risk management
Rock mass behaviour is inherently complex and not
simply reducible to a simple model. The relation
between precursory behaviour and failure is fraught
with uncertainty. Matters contributing to a high level of
uncertainty include:
*
variation in the properties of jointed rock masses,
*
assessments of rock mass properties and behaviour,
*
stress/strain-failure relations for rock mass,
*
information on the in situ stress distribution, and
*
an understanding of the effects of time, blasting
damage, water, etc.
Lack of knowledge of these factors can contribute to
gross simplication and the results derived from
assessment of rock mass stability must be regarded as
indicative only.
In terms of a risk management control system,
indicators can be considered as hazards, precursors as
incidents, and local damage and regional failure as
losses.
A geotechnical risk management approach includes
identication of the potential for uncontrolled ground
movement and delineates the zone of potential rock
mass instability. In this approach, it is implied that there
is a relation between precursory rock mass behaviour
(including results from geotechnical monitoring) and
rock mass failure, i.e. precursors have a statistically
signicant correlation with subsequent failure. Many
geotechnical failures are preceded by precursors
that indicate the failure, but it appears that at present
there is no quantitatively reliable way to predict when
the failure will occur. Furthermore, some local-scale
failures may not be preceded by noticeable precursors;
conversely, some precursors may not be followed by
failure.
The most common way of assessing the potential for
rock mass failure is to use a heuristic approach. This
approach of retrospective analysis examines past case
studies of geotechnical and mining environments in
which geotechnical failures took place, and uses them to
predict rock mass behaviour in similar circumstances.
The geotechnical prediction is generally described as
foretelling rock mass behaviour on the basis of
observations or monitoring. The analysis of rock mass
performance based on past behaviour allows for
remedial measures to be taken. Although it is generally
possible to foretell a geotechnical occurrence, including
its scale and location, based on present geotechnical
knowledge, it is difcult if not impossible to predict the
timing of the occurrence.
In the absence of statistical (or any other) evidence
that precursors determine rock mass failure, the
precautionary principle can be applied. The precau-
tionary principle states that, where there is a possibility
of an undesirable event, protective action should be
taken in advance of scientic proof of the potential
event [19]. The precautionary principle calls for pre-
ventative action, even when there is no enough proof
that failure will occur. In other words, when geotechni-
cal uncertainty does exist, application of the precau-
tionary principle can prevent unwanted events.
Although we may have an understanding of mechan-
isms and relations, e.g. between stress levels and the
failure of a rock sample in a laboratory, there is no
proven relation between precursory behaviour and nal
failure, e.g. between rock noises and failure, or between
a local rock fall and subsequent large-scale rock mass
instability.
When precursory behaviour to rock mass failure is
detected, the original collected data must be carefully
reviewed for the following [20]:
*
features missed or not taken into account (e.g.
unknown fault, water seepage),
*
misinterpretation of a previously obtained interpreta-
tion (e.g. strength/stress analysis),
*
verication of results from laboratory testing (e.g.
was testing done on dry or wet samples?),
*
appropriate geotechnical data collection, and
*
assumptions of geotechnical conditions (e.g. stresses).
Observation of the geotechnical precursors and
application of precautionary principles allows for
prevention of rock mass failure associated with mining
activity or mitigation of the effect of rock mass failure.
It can be achieved by changing mining operations,
reinforcing the rock mass or application of special
techniques to modify the properties of the rock mass
(e.g. grouting or draining).
9. Monitoring of precursory behaviour
The role of geotechnical instrumentation is to aid
the decision making process by identifying possible
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 581
geotechnical risks and modes of rock mass failure and
then taking appropriate steps to control the impact.
Geotechnical instrumentation requires an understanding
of the generalized time sequence of events leading to
failure and recognition of the value of early preventive
interventions to reduce undesirable events.
In the failure propagation phase, monitoring can
provide information on how rock mass behaviour is
changing, so that timely warning or implementation of
remedial measures become possible.
Geotechnical instrumentation allows the analysis of
rock mass behaviour by measuring changes of critical
values (e.g. displacement, stress or acoustic emission)
over time. Generally, three types of behaviour can be
identied: regressive, progressive and transgressive.
Regressive behaviour is observed when, after an initial
increase in value, the measured parameters stabilize and
do not change. Such a trend indicates that the
probability of failure is remote or unexpected. Progres-
sive behaviour is reected by slow and often a linear
increase in a value over time. A progressive trend
indicates that structural damage is taking place and the
probability of failure can be assessed as probable or
likely. However, it has to be stressed that slopes of open
pits may exhibit progressive behaviour for many years
and that this does not necessarily terminate in collapse
[21]. Transgressive behaviour refers to a rapid growth in
measured values, which indicate that structural damage
is accelerating. The probability of failure can be assessed
as imminent. Fig. 17 shows a conceptual relation
between rock mass behaviour over time and the
probability of failure.
The results of the analysis of case studies of
geotechnical precursors to ground collapse shows that,
in underground and open pit mining, a full range of
geotechnical monitoring is required to understand the
behaviour of potentially unstable rock mass and to
predict rock mass failure. This may include displace-
ment monitoring, water monitoring, stress change
monitoring and acoustic emission monitoring. An
example of the time manifestation of various rock mass
behaviour patterns monitored prior to failure is given in
Fig. 18.
In the early stage of failure, which is usually caused by
regional structural damage to the rock mass, the most
valuable tool is the use of geotechnical instrumentation
to measure displacement, e.g. extensometers, crack-
meters or surveying methods. Use of such instrumenta-
tion can quantify elastic and inelastic ground movement,
displacement caused by fracture opening or strain
caused by changes in stress. Displacement should be
monitored at the perimeter of the site of anticipated
collapse.
Displacement monitoring, although providing valu-
able information on structural changes in the rock mass,
appears to have limited value in providing an indication
of the onset of the collapse. There are numerous
examples of rock mass which was structurally damaged
and underwent substantial displacement but did not
collapse, including open pit walls which have been in an
unstable condition (creeping) or fractured pillars (in
underground mines) which have been yielding for many
years.
For structurally damaged rock masses, the best source
of information on changes in stability is the monitoring
of stress changes. Stress changes should be measured in
the centre of the anticipated collapse area and give an
additional indication of the behaviour of the rock mass.
Lack of substantial stress changes, despite progressive
displacement, may be an indication of the creep
behaviour of the rock mass. To predict failure, stress
change must be related to the strength of the rock mass,
and that presents a geotechnical challenge. Although
changes in stress may indicate impending failure, they
still do not provide information on the timing of the
collapse.
It is noticed that rock mass collapses, which take
place in hard rock mines, are usually preceded by
TIME
P
R
O
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

O
F

F
A
I
L
U
R
E
r
e
m
o
t
e
,

u
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
,

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
,

l
i
k
e
l
y
,

i
m
m
i
n
e
n
t
,

c
e
r
t
a
i
n
,
Regressive
Progressive
Transgressive
Fig. 17. Change in values of monitored parameters in time versus
probability of failure.
Fig. 18. Various manifestations of rock mass behaviour monitored
prior to failure.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 582
acoustic emissions. These emissions take place in a
relatively short time prior to collapse. Monitoring of
acoustic emissions may provide a nal warning of rock
mass failure and imminent collapse.
The development of monitoring and prevention
strategies requires planning for the occurrence of the
identied hazard. Preparation entails the development
of response plans, ensuring that staffs know their roles
and responsibilities during the event and the recovery
plans to minimize operational impact.
10. Conclusions
Analysis of case studies of regional-scale geotechnical
failures resulting in the collapse of mining structures
indicates that such failures do not happen without
warning. The warning signs can be classied as
geotechnical indicators and precursors. Geotechnical
indicators are signs or contributing factors that point
out or suggest that the rock mass or geotechnical
structure may be prone to structural failure. Geotechni-
cal features such as faults and folds, changes in
mechanical properties, etc., and mining operational
factors are indicators of possible failure. Geotechnical
precursors to structural failure are tell-tale signs
suggesting that the rock mass or geotechnical structure
has been damaged. External occurrences, the most
common of which are rainfall and blasting, trigger
structural damage or failure.
In case examples of regional rock mass failure
resulting in massive collapses, the following succession
is observed:
*
years in advance, initial precursory behaviour is
observed at the periphery of site of the oncoming
failure,
*
months before collapse, precursory behaviour be-
comes localized,
*
weeks before collapse, precursors are noticed in close
vicinity to the centre of the impending collapse site,
and
*
hours before collapse, precursors take place at the
centre of the impending collapse site.
Based on the observed succession, it is possible to
distinguish three phases of geotechnical warning,
namely, awareness, alert and alarm. Recognition of
these phases allows for timely action to prevent heavy
losses of personnel and equipment.
A full range of geotechnical monitoring is required to
understand the behaviour of potentially unstable rock
mass and to predict rock mass failure. The range should
include displacement monitoring, water monitoring,
stress change monitoring and acoustic emission
monitoring.
The analysis of geotechnical large-scale failures shows
that they do not occur randomly and are not unpredict-
able in terms of the type of failure and its location.
Vigilant geotechnical monitoring of rock mass and of
mining structures allows identication and recording of
geotechnical precursors. These records provide a valuable
tool which can be used to predict impending failures.
References
[1] Kaiser PK. Deformation monitoring for stability assessment of
underground openings. In: Hudson J, editor. Comprehensive rock
engineering. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993.
[2] Szwedzicki T. The effect of mining geometry on stability of rock
mass around underground excavations. Min Resour Eng 2000;
9(2):26878.
[3] Bryan A, Bryan JG, Fouche J. Some problems of strata control
and support in pillar workings. Min Eng 1964;123:23866.
[4] Moedryk CM. Historical, technical review of Coabrook disaster,
1960. Johannesburg: The Government Mining Engineer, 1965.
[5] Szwedzicki T, McGill T. Impact of public perception on the
worlds mining industry 19502000. London: International
Mining and Minerals (IMM), July 2001. p. 236.
[6] Improving Ground Stability and Mine Rescue. The report of the
provincial inquiry into ground control and emergency prepared-
ness in Ontario mines, Ontario Government, 1986.
[7] Mufulira Mine. Final report of the Commission of Inquiry,
Lusaka, 1971.
[8] Thompson PW, Cierlitza S. Identication of a slope failure over a
year before nal collapse using multiple monitoring methods. In:
Szwedzicki T, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on Geotech-
nical Instrumentation and Monitoring in Open Pit and Under-
ground Mining, Balkema, 1993.
[9] Szwedzicki T. Pre- and post-failure ground behavior: case studies
of surface crown pillar collapse. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr (London) 1999;(36):3519.
[10] Szwedzicki T. Geotechnical precursors to large-scale ground
collapse in mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
(London) 2001;(38):95765.
[11] Sheehy JA. Report of the royal commission appointed to inquire
into certain matters relating to the state coal mine, Collinsville.
Brisbane: Government Printer, 1956.
[12] Staunton JH. Report of a formal investigations under Section 98
of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1982. June 1998, ISBN 0 7240
8869 5.
[13] Hope AL. Record of investigation, Western Australia, 2002,
unpublished.
[14] Szwedzicki T. Sinkhole formation over mining areas and risk
management implications. Trans Inst Min Metall (London)
1999;108:A2736.
[15] Robertson A. Warrego crown pillar collapse. Peko Mines. Inter-
Ofce Memo, 1988.
[16] Report of the tribunal appointed to inquire into the disaster at
Aberfan on October 21, 1966, London, 1967.
[17] Goodspeed T, Skinner J, Friend RM. Accident investigation
report on underground nonmetal mine fatal collapse of mine
workings. US Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health
Administration, February 3, 1995.
[18] Zipf RK, Swanson P. Description of a large catastrophic failure in
southwester Wyoming Trona Mine. In: Amadei B, Kranz RL,
Scott GA, Smeallie PH, editors. Proceedings of the 37th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium. Colorado: Vail, 1999.
[19] Harding R. The next environmental challenge: moving from risk
management to the precautionary principle. Proceedings of the
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 583
AusIMM Conference After 2000The Future of Mining,
Sydney, NSW, April 1012, 2000.
[20] Call RD. Slope stability. In: SME mining engineering handbook,
vol. 1. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration, Inc., 1992.
[21] Sullivan TD. Understanding pit slope movement. In: Szwedzicki
T, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on Geotechnical
Instrumentation and Monitoring in Open Pit and Underground
Mining, Balkema, 1993.
T. Szwedzicki / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 573584 584